Perhaps the most flaccid argument about the anti-Semitism that has piggybacked itself on to l’affaire Strauss-Kahn is that he himself made an issue of his being Jewish by saying that it would be used against him should he campaign to be president of France.

In the same remark, he said that the other two issues that would be used against him would be money and women. The latter certainly has become true, given that as someone accused of rape, his attitudes to women have come into play. But let’s take the money question. By the same logical fallacy that some now exploit the controversy around him to attack Jews and Israel, a pretzel could be twisted to attack capitalism (even that practiced by a socialist).

Look on the internet and there is some vile stuff to be found about Strauss-Kahn being Jewish, which apart from the customary twaddle about Jews and money, asserts that Jews have a predilection for violence in general and sexual violence in particular. Seeing that the same anti-Semites have brought Israel into play, let us go there: Moshe Katsev, a former president, has been convicted of rape. That hardly suggests a culture of tolerance for sexual violence, but anti-Semitism and reason have never been found in the same company.

If a Strauss-Kahn presidential bid is to be at all possible after the court system has done the work that it should be left alone to do, the only way in which his being Jewish should be an issue should be whether France is prepared to make a Jew its head of state. There is hardly space in these notes to address that; perhaps it would have turned out that the French electorate would have been motivated mainly by a desire to oust Nicolas Sarkozy as president, and "overlook" Strauss-Kahn’s Jewishness, to employ that awkward and awful word.
 
Protocols 
Opinion polls and records of incidents appear to show that anti-Semitism is festering once more in Europe and, going by a study by Sofia-based Jewish organisation Shalom, in Bulgaria too.

But the contest about whether Europe will be a land of tolerance or intolerance, one must also delve into the issue of Islam and Europe. The Netherlands’ Geert Wilders and Bulgaria’s ultra-nationalist Ataka leader Volen Siderov, among many others of their kind and even those of more moderate views, argue that Europe is under assault from radical Islam.

Certainly, the mix grows ever more heady, because it is not a matter of there being just two sides. Copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion translated into Arabic, in hard copy and online, are said to be doing a brisk trade, and it seems that that excrescent forgery will be with us forever, however much those who propagate it worsen not only anti-Semitism but also that other evil, anti-Islamism.

People of reason, that concept on which Europe has long prided itself – though over the decades, often more in principle than in practice, should realise that arguing only that anti-Islamic words and deeds are dangerous, because of the threat of retaliation, is insufficient. Anti-Islamism is morally wrong, and that is the line that needs to be drawn.
 
Emotions 
Inevitably, the arguments are often more emotional than rational.

The poison spilt on the streets of Sofia by the brawl outside the Banya Bashi mosque between Siderov’s cohorts and Muslims who had come for Friday prayers is of a pernicious variety. Again on the basis of that unscientific global forum, the internet, there are not a few who applaud the actions of Siderov’s stormtroopers, even though Europe should know better than to tolerate black-clad people assaulting houses of worship. Let the record show Siderov’s allegation that mosques in Bulgaria are nests of potentially violent radical Islam; but if that is true, let the competent authorities investigate and prosecutions, if justified, follow. Again, Europe should know better than to leave such matters to purveyors of prejudice.

It was heartening, at least, that some people responded to an appeal on Facebook to lay flowers outside the Sofia mosque in a gesture of solidarity. Consider too that the mosque incident followed by some days the news of an initiative by Shalom and others to clean away Sofia’s Nazi graffiti.

Bans on burqas and statutory measures against the building of mosques are upheld by those who say they seek to defend European values; and it could be fairly argued that such modes of dress are not traditional to Europe, unlike the long-established practices of wearing crucifixes or yarmulkes – meaning that such bans are not really universally against the public display of religious symbols. Yet, are there not corners of Europe that due to the legacy of the Ottomans and others, wearing Muslim dress is indeed traditional? Yes, we are back at the argument about whether Europe’s traditions are almost exclusively Judeo-Christian.

And, finally, what does that phrase "European values" mean? Are they represented by the European Charter of Human Rights (in this context, have a look at article 10.1, which is of reference), are they represented by those who lay flowers at a mosque in defence of tolerance, or are they represented by those who reject Jew and Muslim as the Other?

A disconnect between the ideals of human rights charters and the views expressed in opinion polls and public forums is hardly breaking news. But it does suggest that Europeans are choosing some values above others, at the risk of tolerance falling victim, and not only that.